You cannot make "Choices" in Hard Determinism

[Age]

You are quite right of course, the very fact that you are aware you are aware informs consciousness is fundamentally the controller of action, and that you are this consciousness.

Consciousness is the free will.

Consciousness being the fundamental controlling of the nature or outcome of something. Like walking for example, walking cannot happen until there is a determination to direct one leg to move forward. There is no movement without intention, which is just another word for choice.
Choice between the legs standing still or moving forward is a conscious event. You are that consciousness.

Interesting... Hard Determinists seem to believe they have that 'Intent' on lock-down, or that it could only ever be (Pre)-Determined.

people like you "wizard22", or in other words "believers", seem to believe some Truly WEIRD and OUTRAGEOUS things, like for example, some entity knows, in-advance, what you would have chosen if you ever could have options, AND, you do not options.

It's an easy presumption to make--that Existence must always and only be 'One' way...

[Age]

It just isn't, it has nothing to do with it. Whether determinism is the case isn't reliant on any being knowing the future.

Determinism doesn't rely on the Present proceeding from the Past???

That's an entirely different thing than what you said before. The present proceeding from the past has nothing to do with any being in particular KNOWING exactly what's going to happen. You have to go into second order thoughts here. You're not making claims just about what's true, you're making claims about needing some being to KNOW something is true.

"The future follows from the past" is a distinct claim from "some being knows exactly what the future will be". Do you see the difference?

A LOT Of "wizard22's" thoughts and CLAIMS, here, do NOT logically belong together.

[Flannel Jesus]

That's an entirely different thing than what you said before. The present proceeding from the past has nothing to do with any being in particular KNOWING exactly what's going to happen. You have to go into second order thoughts here. You're not making claims just about what's true, you're making claims about needing some being to KNOW something is true.

"The future follows from the past" is a distinct claim from "some being knows exactly what the future will be". Do you see the difference?

( viewtopic.php?t=43369 )

So are you able to distinguish between the statement "the future follows from the past" and "there is a being who knows what the future will be"?

If you can't do that then you can't even begin to have a conversation with determinists

[Wizard22]

So are you able to distinguish between the statement "the future follows from the past" and "there is a being who knows what the future will be"?

If you can't do that then you can't even begin to have a conversation with determinists

If you believe the future follows from the past, then you also believe that you know what the future will be.

Correct?

[Flannel Jesus]

So are you able to distinguish between the statement "the future follows from the past" and "there is a being who knows what the future will be"?

If you can't do that then you can't even begin to have a conversation with determinists

If you believe the future follows from the past, then you also believe that you know what the future will be.

Correct?

no. Literally you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Here's a physics simulation:
https://www.myphysicslab.com/pendulum/r ... um-en.html

I see that there's a "play" button. I don't know exactly what's going to happen when I press "play". I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, right? Because I've never seen this before.

So I press play, and I watch what happens, I watch how high the pendulum swings and I remember it.

And then I reset the experiment and press play again, and I watch how high the pendulum swings the second time.

And the third time.

And the fourth time.

And I notice that it swings *the same height every time I press play*.

It's a deterministic system, *even though I didn't know ahead of time what would happen*. Right? If I haven't seen what's going to happen, I don't know what's going to happen, but it's deterministic anyway. The fact that it's deterministic has literally nothing to do with the fact that I didn't know how high the pendulum would swing before I saw it.

You don't know how a book will end, but you know that the book *has a specific pre-written ending*, don't you? The ending of the book isn't changing after you bought it. Believing that the ending of the book is unchanging is not the same as saying "I know how the book will end". I don't understand why you think that you would have to know how the book ends, in order to believe that the ending is already written and unchanging.

[Wizard22]

I don't know what's going to happen, but it's deterministic anyway.

There's your hangup.

You believe in Determinism, despite any and all possible outcomes.

This is a common fallacy among all Determinists though, and especially BigMike.

[Age]

I don't know what's going to happen, but it's deterministic anyway.

There's your hangup.

You believe in Determinism, despite any and all possible outcomes.

This is a common fallacy among all Determinists though, and especially BigMike.

In just about EVERY thing you SAY and CLAIM absolutely NOTHING FOLLOWS, LOGICALLY.

Just because OF 'any and all possible outcomes', this, in and of itself, does NOT counter NOR refute 'determinism'.

OBVIOUSLY, it is BEYOND RIDICULOUSNESS TO BELIEVE IN 'determinism', BUT SAYING and WRITING 'despite any and all possible outcomes' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in relation to the first part of the sentence.

And, you have NOT YET PROVED that 'determinism' is NOT A thing. So, you THEN CLAIMING, 'This is a common fallacy among ALL so-called "determinists", does NOT FOLLOW, LOGICALLY, EITHER.

[Age]

So are you able to distinguish between the statement "the future follows from the past" and "there is a being who knows what the future will be"?

If you can't do that then you can't even begin to have a conversation with determinists

If you believe the future follows from the past, then you also believe that you know what the future will be.

Correct?

no. Literally you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Here's a physics simulation:
https://www.myphysicslab.com/pendulum/r ... um-en.html

I see that there's a "play" button. I don't know exactly what's going to happen when I press "play". I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, right? Because I've never seen this before.

So I press play, and I watch what happens, I watch how high the pendulum swings and I remember it.

And then I reset the experiment and press play again, and I watch how high the pendulum swings the second time.

And the third time.

And the fourth time.

And I notice that it swings *the same height every time I press play*.

It's a deterministic system, *even though I didn't know ahead of time what would happen*. Right? If I haven't seen what's going to happen, I don't know what's going to happen, but it's deterministic anyway. The fact that it's deterministic has literally nothing to do with the fact that I didn't know how high the pendulum would swing before I saw it.

You don't know how a book will end, but you know that the book *has a specific pre-written ending*, don't you? The ending of the book isn't changing after you bought it. Believing that the ending of the book is unchanging is not the same as saying "I know how the book will end". I don't understand why you think that you would have to know how the book ends, in order to believe that the ending is already written and unchanging.

I UNDERSTAND WHY "wizard22" thinks, and SAYS, and CLAIMS what it does, here.

WHY "wizard22" thinks that you would HAVE TO KNOW HOW the book ends, or HOW EVERY thing ELSE WILL 'play out' IS BECAUSE "wizard22" CLEARLY VERY RARELY thinks LOGICALLY.

"wizard22" has PROVED this over and over, here, in this forum.

[Age]

That's an entirely different thing than what you said before. The present proceeding from the past has nothing to do with any being in particular KNOWING exactly what's going to happen. You have to go into second order thoughts here. You're not making claims just about what's true, you're making claims about needing some being to KNOW something is true.

"The future follows from the past" is a distinct claim from "some being knows exactly what the future will be". Do you see the difference?

( viewtopic.php?t=43369 )

So are you able to distinguish between the statement "the future follows from the past" and "there is a being who knows what the future will be"?

If you can't do that then you can't even begin to have a conversation with determinists

LOL This one SPEAKS and WRITES as though there is some ACTUAL thing as A "determinist".

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't know what's going to happen, but it's deterministic anyway.

There's your hangup.

You believe in Determinism, despite any and all possible outcomes.

This is a common fallacy among all Determinists though, and especially BigMike.

I think you have a serious cognitive problem if you can't distinguish between the statement "this book I'm holding has a set ending" and "I know how this book will end".

[Wizard22]

I think you have a serious cognitive problem if you can't distinguish between the statement "this book I'm holding has a set ending" and "I know how this book will end".

How does the author know?

[Flannel Jesus]

I think you have a serious cognitive problem if you can't distinguish between the statement "this book I'm holding has a set ending" and "I know how this book will end".

How does the author know?

I don't even know what that question means.

I'm not talking about an author, I'm trying to help you conceptualize how you can know something has a set ending even if you don't know what that ending is. If you buy a book that you didn't author, then you do'nt know what the ending is, but presumably *there is an ending*, right?

[LuckyR]

I'm not talking about an author, I'm trying to help you conceptualize how you can know something has a set ending even if you don't know what that ending is. If you buy a book that you didn't author, then you do'nt know what the ending is, but presumably *there is an ending*, right?

Of course. That's obvious. However, even if your book analogy were correct, there is no difference to the reader whether the book already has an ending or if the pages magically "write themselves" as he reads. Thus there is no advantage to either scenario.

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm not talking about an author, I'm trying to help you conceptualize how you can know something has a set ending even if you don't know what that ending is. If you buy a book that you didn't author, then you do'nt know what the ending is, but presumably *there is an ending*, right?

Of course. That's obvious. However, even if your book analogy were correct, there is no difference to the reader whether the book already has an ending or if the pages magically "write themselves" as he reads. Thus there is no advantage to either scenario.

The person I'm speaking to literally can't distinguish between the claim 'the book has an ending' and 'i know what the ending is'. Just trying to get him there. It's hard - someone who doesn't want to understand something can't be made to, I guess.

[promethean75]

The language is all philosophically overcomplicated, you guys. A 'choice' is what a person makes when they decide to do something. What the word is describing with such ordinary and quite sufficient use is that very behavior.

What it isn't describing, and certainly couldn't ever describe, is the thing that is already in question for the cartesian dualist; that point of contact between ghost and material where 'choice', as they (not us Big Mikeans) define it, actually happens.

These dualists make the word have to mean some kind of abracadabra shit when it was doing just fine describing the goal-oriented behavior of bi-pedal featherless chickens.